About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 7, San Francisco 6, Torres 4, Carter 2, Sandy 2, The City 2, David Mccord 2, Sacramento 2, City 2, California 2, Mr. Brooks 1, Ms. Hale 1, El Cerrito 1, Jessica Ackerman 1, Jessica Dur Man Ackerman 1, Shell North America 1, Puc 1, Jerad Bloomfield 1, Puc Look 1, Empirical Data 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 30, 2012
    12:30 - 1:00pm PST  

12:30pm
power has been develop to link the build out with the price points and the marketing and the outreach we're going to be doing just has been put on the table and in lpi has shown that we can actually roll this program out even in phase one with competitive prices to pg&e, and that would profoundly change this entire outreach model. the rate fairness board when realized this information was coming forward postponed their decision to the sfpuc and we have to analyze that information and see if it will change the way we market the program before we okay the outreach plan. that is crucial. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is francisco costa
12:31pm
and envir -- environmental justice advocacy and many residents in the bay view participated in community choice aggregation and perhaps one person here in the auditorium that knows what i am talking about. michael [inaudible] lynn brown, jerad bloomfield and others. we make trips to sacramento and we do what we could in the bay view. we put solar on all 58 homes and so on and so forth. in the beginning of this discussion i heard something about climate change and then i was paying attention to this conversation
12:32pm
and there's a lot of fluff. so much fluff it gives you a headache. now, if you look at a map and some of you have done the outreach, whatever way you did the outreach, if you want to pay attention to the carbon footprint you have to do anything for the people that are impacted in district 10 and 11 and if you haven't done that to the best of your ability you have failed, so don't tell us in the areas that are green, which is where mostly the rich people live, where they send all their garbage, where they send all their sewage to which is in district 10 and you do service -- when it comes to outreach. that has to be ratified
12:33pm
immediately. now, we need empirical data from this so-called consultants because sfpuc has this habit to have consultants. we saw this when they tried to put the combustion turbines and seen it again and again and the emphasis is on consultants so sfpuc has to learn in san francisco where we have many advocates and environmentalists that we need to have san franciscans doing the outreach for san francisco, and we will be paying attention to this and once we notice something -- which we have been doing we will write about t now, clean energy has to be discussed in the various facets that clean energy is produced. not only here in the united states but brazil and other areas and to find out really how much does
12:34pm
that cost and finally let me say mr. chairman that we do have hydro electricity as part of this and we need to see how that is implemented. thank you very much. >> thank you. i have -- additional cards to name? jessica dur man ackerman and david mccord. >> hi. i am jessica ackerman and conservation staff with the sierra club and i am here to represent the 30,000 members in the bay area. i want to thank the supervisors for talking about the importance of this program and climate change and the importance of the program at for outreach. this is opportunity for economic growth but only if it includes local build out and we're seeing strong benefits and the installation of clean energy, energy efficiency, and leveraging other regional sources and we are concerned
12:35pm
that the pln has a stagnant rate of power on the open market and -- dear the duration of the shell contract. a proposal is being delivered right now that will shape or improve the developments and resources and financial modeling and make the economy more sustainable and provide economic benefits to our people and effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. the way cleanpower sf has passed the board of supervisors is as opt out program and the language used in the outreach plan changes the character of the program the way the legislators envisioned it when passing cleanpower sf. we are concerned changing it in way discourages residents and more cost to the ratepayers. we hope we can take the basic structure of the document and required
12:36pm
notifications and adjustments and also engages residents in civil discourse and community power but the lifetime of this program. thank you very much. >> thank you. i have one other card. anyone else that would like to comment please come forward. thank you. >> i am david mccord and el cerrito and the chair of the sierra club bay chapter energy subcommittee, and the bottom line is that the plan is not yet ready for approval. for one thing the staff needs to fill in the details about just how you're going to reach out to the various communities in the city. supervisor olague that touched
12:37pm
on that. and second the plan does not take into account the impacts of the roll out and pricing scenarios being developed by local power which you have contracted with to do this, and the rate fairness board wants to study these before recommending the rates which will affect what you tell people in your surveys and outreach. so we respectively ask that you direct the staff to return to you in december or january with a really detailed outreach program that clarifies the outreach strategy and integrates local build out and jobs, and infrastructure and incomes into pricing and outreach. thank you.
12:38pm
>> hi folks. nice to see you all again. i think it's been a number of months since i addressed you briefly. of course i speak on behalf of the advocates and we have been very actively involved in this issue and we sent you this later with our considered opinion which i hope you take seriously, serious reservations that we have as advocates representing the community with this particular plan. i want to give personal feelings about this. i respect all my friends on this part of the table and i don't know how they convinced themselves what they're talking about makes sense to anybody but themselves. i mean we're talking about doing surveys and reaching out to
12:39pm
20,000 people and red and green and wait list. we need 60 to 90,000 people in the program. there is no discussion how we go from the 20,000 people and might indicate an interest and roll it out to them and how you get to the 60,000 to 90,000 people and so everybody can opt out. i don't know if they convinced themselves that's great but if they can convince you this makes sense i don't know it's a sad day. it's going to cost $1.4 million to try and sell something that no one in their right mind can sell. it's like dressing up a pig in princess clothes and we're going to go on a door step and explain some way or another how our 100% green is more costly coming from shell
12:40pm
north america and arguably the largest climate criminal and more green and pg&e product. that's called the same thing. if you think you can sell that -- well, i think you're going to need $5 million probably per person. it's just ridiculous. when you have a good product you don't need to spend millions of dollars to sell it. that's the bottom line. and you paid $400,000 to have people come and look at this and say "well, here are some real alternatives". the alternatives are not only long-term alternatives to develop a program that bills 51% renewables within five years, communicate shares program and interest people in investing in this build out program. that even provides scenarios that hetch hetchy power could be used right from the beginning to mitigate the price increases,
12:41pm
and moving ahead like this never happened. we're having discussions in the stakeholders meetings and other places and how to incorporate this new information. why in the world would you not do that? >> thank you very much. any other member of the public who would like to comment on these items please come forward? and seeing no one come forward we will close public comment. i want to thank puc and ms. hale for your presentation. thank you very much and i really appreciate the work that has been put together in developing the framework for outreach. i actually really believe that we need to move forward quickly as a city. i want to make sure we're successful in the program. while we don't have all the details of the early notification and education plan there, the framework is clear
12:42pm
and i think it's a good starting point to move forward for the city and i believe that while we have had comments about talking about caution i think they're well meaning how to have a successful program but i think the success of the program is that we roll out quickly with the notification and the education plan. that's going to be most meaningful. i also want to make sure that we're really clear that the effort is really working in the deep green areas first and foremost where we know a particular target audience is for the message and we know how to craft that message for them as well. i think that is going to be significant. we're not reaching out to every population in san francisco from the get go but the deep green area is where we need to focus the efforts on. this plan incorporates that and i believe it's the right way to go. i would like to move forward approving something today that can later be implemented early next year and
12:43pm
hopefully we can move that in that direction. commissioner olague. >> yeah. i just wanted to comment that i agree with mr. brooks that the onslaught of opposition that this campaign probably has to deal with will be very severe and i think certainly -- there is the ledgeally ballot in the bay and prop eight and there were ballots in the bay never counted and all of that and who knows? it could be true obviously. there is a website "change.org" and misinformed about shell oil and it's connection to this program and maybe it's not completely misinformed but certainly under lying there is no mention of clean power and how we have no currently and relying completely i will say
12:44pm
hard energy sources and fossil fuels and that sort of thing, and even in my own personal campaign there was a hit piece that came out about how i was in bed with shell oil and nigeria and active vifts there and we know that is true and disappearing and what not and i don't think we should under estimate the type of political quagmire that this program will find itself in and the attacks are unwarranted and misinforming and certainly i'm not suggesting they're all coming from pg&e, but certainly there is a motivation to maintain the monopoly they have held in the city around providing energy, so with that being said i just wanted to close my comments and i am glad next week i think we're at lafco hearing the task force recommendations.
12:45pm
that is critical and sometimes we pass the policies and our actions never conform with the policies that we pass, so if we're serious about reaching that goal in 10 years i think we really need to get serious and that's why cleanpower sf is so important, but in closing i want to go back again and harp on my jimmy carter issue of earlier and i'm going to take this quote. it says "soon after jimmy carter installed solar panels on the white house. a generation from now i think this is in the 70's or early 80's the solar heater can be a surcosity, a museum piece, a example of a road not taken, or a small part of one of the greatest adventures under taken by the american people and harness the power of the sun and move away from the crippling dependence
12:46pm
on foreign oil, and again at that point we can say that the solar panels were a museum piece. i am hoping cleanpower sf isn't this interesting idea that creeped up and disappeared because of all the misinformation and whatever that certain interests will probably have in seeing this sort of plan not succeed, so again when i was 16 my first venture into politics was through this group called "people for safe energy" in fresno and i was 17 and our first venture was to go to the power plant and protest the fact they wanted to have a nuclear power plant sitting next to an earthquake fault. in japan i think the conversation around nuclear power is shifting again and there are challenges to it and this is not new. this
12:47pm
conversation has been around forever and that is pg&e and nuclear power and all of that and here we are in 2012 still having the conversation, so i mean i wouldn't under estimate again the type of opposition, however subtle or not, that this program is going to have to conwith. that's why it's critical how we accurately inform people in the city around the value of this program. >> thank you commissioner olague. president carter also wore a button down sweater when he made that statement. >> did he? >> it's important to note that ronald regan removed those solar panels from the white house. i am unclear on the agenda and on ours it doesn't mention any possible action item, but on the document for the public utilities commission it does and i think we want to make sure we're either today or the next
12:48pm
puc meeting but i hope that's the plan, the framework of the plan can be adopted. >> i would like to make a comment. >> commissioner torres. >> first of all i never believed the hit pieces against you commissioner olague. >> thank you. >> and the man that defeated carter thought redwood trees caused pollutions and number three i don't think the staff is naive and to suggest that is inappropriate. they have been working very hard in this effort -- >> i -- >> i'm not talking about you. i am talking general in response. i believe the process is organic and i believe they do take into consideration every input as possible and this process and i know the chair and the other members of the commission know is not over yet. it is still evolving and that is an important element to put out there. this process is still
12:49pm
evolving and organ and i can need continued input to whatever surveys and approaches we take are reflective of those issues and the other issue raised is san franciscans should be doing outreach in this support and i can't support that more than enough because it's always my experience that sometimes we bring in outside forces -- not that we have here, but outside forces that don't know the community, communities of color and speak other languages and in addition to english and those are sensitive issues i think the staff has taken into consideration and that's an important statement to make. i appreciate your comments and i read your letter and i appreciate the comments but i think it's important to keep within the context of how the staff and commission has operated and quite frankly how members of the board of supervisors has operated with
12:50pm
the best of intentions because at the end of the day we're accountable to the tax payers and the rate payers of city and county of san francisco. >> thank you president torres. just a clarification on the action item before us if there is one or for the later meet something. >> the sfpuc commission agenda provides for them to discuss and take action, so our understanding is that the commission secretary would call the roll for the sfpuc so that they could vote on this agenda item for lafco it was just a discussion item. >> thank you. commissioner vietor. >> yes and i appreciate all the public comments that have been made and the comments too from this body and all of the work that the puc has done. i have been on the public utilities
12:51pm
commission for four years plus and i know this cleanpower sf issue -- i think it's been eight years, nine years in the coming, and when i came on there was really this sort of sense that the puc wasn't stepping up, that the city didn't care that we weren't moving quickly enough and he we are at this opportunity to really move things forward. i think it's really remarkable and i think we all now recognize with hurricane sandy, with the inclement weather and the winter we're having now that climate change and renewable power and local energy provision is paramount and we need to main ain and amplify that commitment as a city. i also continue to have my eye on the prize of the local build out and the promise of that because i think not only is the job opportunity great, and all kinds of implications
12:52pm
around work force training and at the local level and diversify that source and needs to be local and hurricane sandy has shown us that. that if there were nor localized power 4,000 people wouldn't be out of power right now so i am supportive of moving forward as quickly as possible with the education and outreach that needs to happen. i also concur with president torres and this is organic and evolving and this financing piece is really an important discussion to have and i would welcome having that with the lafco to talk about if the possibility of local build out over this four year contract could reduce the rates and the question of the bond and $4 million bond and i would
12:53pm
love for the cfo at the puc look at that and give a briefing on that, so i am wondering in short order we're . -- we couldn't have this presentation and understanding we're going door to door and putting numbers out there into the community but i think that needs to happen. this program needs to move forward. it's been a long time. not just with this program, but as we heard from the installation of the first solar power in the 70's it's time to take action and move forward so thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner mo ran. >> thank you, just a couple quick comments. first is that when the item comes before the commission at our next meeting in order to lift the funding
12:54pm
cap i think that is an appropriate time for staff or davis and associates to respond to some of the issues raised today and specific outreach to communities of color. secondly, i do understand that the local power has submitted at least a first major draft of their proposal that that's being reviewed by puc staff. i have seen some of the initial work, both the submission and the staff response on that. i think that's important that it proceed and proceed quickly. i am in favor of moving forward with this program as proposed in part to keep the pressure on that activity and not shelfd and ignored and that it's addressed and responded to completely, so when we have a presentation it be one frankly not just by local power but also by local power and staff. hopefully having
12:55pm
come to some agreement as to what those numbers are and what they mean for us that we can have a complete discussion about that, so i think it is organic and moving and we need to keep the pressure on moving it quickly. >> okay. thank you. colleagues any other comments or questions? okay. i think so the puc commissioners do have an action item and i will hand over the gavel to the president of the commission to carry out their decision. >> commissioner moran. >> thank you mr. president. i would like to move the resolution of this in front of us. >> is there a second? >> second. >> moved and seconded. any opposition? any discussion? any public comment? called roll. >> president torres. >> aye. >> commissioner.
12:56pm
>> aye. commissioner. >> aye. >> motion carries. i think we're adjourned. >> okay. very good. thank you very much. i am very excited to see that go forward. thank you commissioners. let's go to our next item. >> item number six public comment. >> this is a chance to comment on any item not on the agenda, any item before us. >> the lafco committee that has been established all over california have an very important role to play, and there is a channel 108 that shows the deliberations of the lafco and what happens in sacramento. here in san francisco we just take it for granted when we get our hydro
12:57pm
electricity and when we get our hetch hetchy water delivered to our taps, and i think it's high time because how the rich folks at one time went to congress and dammed hetch hetchy to get the water here that we pay attention to the poor folks, the farmers who today most of them have to drink contaminated water and if they have money they have to drink bottled water. this is in california. now, we in san francisco we just take things for granted, so when we talk about clean energy, when we talk about water, when we talk about
12:58pm
anything where the taxpayer pays money let's not take things for granted without having empirical data we have this habit that we can just spend the tax payers money. i know farmers in the mid-west who are paid not to till the land while half the land they grow corn which when the final product comes out costs $74 a gallon. tank clean energy. so we need to go deeper into it. it's not to say that the deliberation here favors that we do the right thing. we really need to do the right hing with empirical data, not with fluff, and as one who is a
12:59pm
philosopher and i go really deep into things and read stuff i will not tolerate fluff. i will expose it. i will shine light where there is darkness. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other members of the public would like to comment? seeing none. we will close public comment. and madam clerk do we have any other items before us? >> no mr. chair that concludes the items before us. >> and we are adjourned.